Dallas-Area School Denies Admission to Girl with Lesbian Parents

Stvincents

St. Vincent's, an Anglican elementary school in Bedford, Texas, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, has denied admission to a girl because her parents are lesbians, NBCDFW reports:

"Jill and Tracy Harrison, lesbians married in 2006 in Canada, applied to enroll their daughter into St. Vincent's School, in June.
On the application, they crossed out the word father on the application and wrote mother and put Tracy's name on that line. Jill was written on the mother line.
They attended the school's parent night on Tuesday, and now, just a few days before school starts Monday, the school is denying their daughter Olivia enrollment into the school because her parents are lesbians, the women said…Though the school's handbook and website say that the school is non-discriminatory as to race, color, religion and national or ethnic origin, it doesn't stipulate that they won't discriminate based on the sexual orientation of a child's parents."

NBCDFW notes in its story:

"Our story originally referred to the school as St. Vincent's Episcopal School. Even though the sign at the church says Episopal, they said they have parted with that church and are now Anglican."

The major schism in the Anglican/Episcopal church over the past five years has regarded its positions on gays and gay clergy.

In fact, North American church leaders met at St. Vincent's in 2009 "to launch the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), described as an 'alternative' to the U.S. Episcopal Church within the Anglican Communion."

Said Jill Harrison: "I am horribly disappointed. In fact, we are in the 21st century and we are still dealing with this issue. We should just move on. Denying my daughter education based on who I end up sleeping with at the end of the day makes me furious."

 

Comments

  1. Pete says

    Can someone explain to me why I need to care when religion discriminates against gays? I’m for civil rights, not religious recognition.

    I’m torn on this. I’m curiuos, could they disriminate against jewish or muslim students? Is this really an issue gays should be concerned with when there are pleanty of non-denomitaional private schools.

  2. David in Houston says

    Is this a private school or are they receiving money from the state or government? If it’s a private religious school, the women have absolutely no recourse.

  3. Mike says

    Let me add that this is also about social standing as much as it is about religion.

    These schools are in Dallas, but private and make money off the very wealthy suburbanites who refuse to rub shoulders with the rest of humanity here.

    Dallas is pretty metropolitan in it’s views, but it is surrounded by enclaves of white elitists who end up creating their own communities where they can exclude anyone who doesn’t fit their nice pat view of “acceptable” (i.e., white and wealthy).

    Personally I think the parents were trying to enroll their kid in a school that actually provides education than the atrocious public school system in Dallas, but this shouldn’t have been an option.

  4. MarkDC says

    What abou the parents of students who are already enrolled? Are they not at all concerned about this admissions decision? Do they want their children growing up in a hermetically sealed subculture that will not at all prepare them for diversity in the REAL world?

    Of course not. They’re all stupid fucking catholics terrified their own kids will be kicked out. Nice.

    I’ve never met one single catholic I’ve liked in my entire life. I realize why: they’re all brainwashed Nazis incapable of original thought.

    You do realize, according to catholic teaching, original thought IS original sin…right? That’s why they’re all taught to follow rules and obey orders.

  5. TampaZeke says

    Good! If these women are too stupid to not know better than sending their child to a school that will teach them that his/her parents are evil and perverted, then at least SOMEONE is doing something, even if for the wrong reason, to protect the kid.

    For the life of me I can’t imagine why gay people INSIST on sending their kids to anti-gay religious schools.

  6. RJ says

    Anglicans/Episcopalians are not Catholics (ever since Henry VIII broke away from the Roman church), though as far as this story is concerned, the anti-gay bigotry is more or less the same.

  7. Tone says

    At least they could get married, somewhere.

    Perhaps this is the best school in the area, even so that wouldn’t be enough for me to send my kid there. I’d home school first if possible, or hire a tutor to augment their lessons.

  8. Wren says

    Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, whatever, they are all cannibalistic cults: eat his body, drink his blood, c’mon! And the Catholics, devout members of this cult believe in “transubstantiation” the belief that flat bread and wine actually become flesh and blood on an atomic level once its cult leader “blesses” the sh*t. Freak, all of them!!!

  9. Craig says

    @RJ. Remember, Anglicans are NOT Episcopalians. That’s the renegade faction that LEFT the Episcopal church to be led by the bishops in Africa. Bunch of conservative nut cases. These idiots didn’t even accept women clergy, especially the diocese of Ft. Worth.

    The Episcopal church itself is pretty darn gay friendly. Thank heaven these people left a long time ago. Tired of fighting with them.

  10. Joe in NYC says

    These people are not Anglicans, either. They split from the Episcopal Church because they do not tolerate gays and lesbians and oftentimes don’t approve of women in leadership positions, including ordained ministry. Please clarify this. They may call themselves Anglican, but there is no recognition of them in the Anglican Communion, of which The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada are the only member provinces in the US.

    The Episcopal Church is generally not only welcoming, but supporting and affirming of gay and lesbian people and their relationships. It is fighting within the global Anglican Communion for tolerance and inclusivity. Unfortunately, there are pockets of intolerance, most notably in the Diocese of South Carolina (coastal SC). With few local exceptions, we are a gay-affirming church.

    We don’t believe in hiding in the closet, and we believe in the sacraments being available to all people, including ordination (see Bishops Gene Robinson & Mary Glasspool). Our national church is led by an intelligent and erudite female primate (Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori), the first female primate in the history of the Anglican Communion.

    Again, these people are neither Anglican nor Episcopalian. This would never happen in The Episcopal Church.

  11. Joe in NYC says

    Correction: The Anglican Church of Canada, *The Episcopal Church of Mexico*, and The Episcopal Church are the only member provinces of the Anglican Communion in *North America.*

  12. neckbeard says

    That looks like one big ass grade school. Is there a H.S. also?

    People in big cities like Dallas and it’s suburbs who can afford it send their kids to private schools, often simply because many public schools suck. It has nothing to do with money, they get plenty of funding, they just suck compared to available private schools. Public schools have trouble makers that can’t be kicked out, while private schools can can and do expel for all sorts of reasons; and academic standards are almost always higher than public schools.

  13. kodiak says

    Looks like a “cha-ching” kinda place. I would want my kid in the mix of the real world, not a isolationist enclave. Good thing is, everybody knows what kind of place it is now, and can avoid it or not.

  14. says

    If the school is receiving ANY repeat ANY monies from the city, state or federal governments then they are in violation of Federal Law.

    This just shows how more and more we are leaning toward a theocracy.

    Below is a “Letter to the Editor” in the San Diego U/T yesterday that I thought was quite well thought out…

    “Separating church and state
    Congratulations to the readers (Letters, Aug. 15) who figured out that the First Amendment doesn’t include the phrase “separation of church and state.” But consider what the operative sentence of that amendment means: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, our government – i.e., the “state” – cannot require you to follow any particular religion – “church” – nor can it prevent you from belonging to the church of your choice, or none at all (this last because “freedom of religion” also means “freedom from religion,” since you can’t be forced to follow a faith you don’t profess). Hence the state’s role in our government is not only “separate” from that of the church, it is a mutual separation because churches may not stray into governing, either (“no law respecting an establishment of religion”). No church in the government, and no government in the church. People who have taken the trouble to understand the implications of religion becoming involved in government (read James Madison) know that prohibiting this practice protects the free exercise of their faith, rather than straitjackets it.

    Jeremy Dendle
    Chula Vista”

  15. TANK says

    I see a lot of posters who buy into the myth that there is such a thing as a “true faith,” and thus base their understanding of religion on a logical fallacy; that is, a false belief. So, in effect, one false belief (or many of them) propped up by another… Nope. It’s whatever you want it to be (any faith, any demonination is whatever one says it is and claims the title). And given the schism that is emerging in the episcopalian church (a minority christian demoniation in the united states)…there’s no moral superiority in claiming one faith over another…none whatsoever. It’s a joke, and those of faith commenting here to justify that joke just make the audience laugh harder.

  16. TANK says

    Oh, and parents who send their children to bigoted private institutions knowingly….and it’s knowingly in this case…are guilty of child abuse. I have absolutely no sympathy for the lesbian couple, but I do have the utmost sympathy and pity for their children….who neither deserve them, nor the school that discriminated against them. Parents are supposed to protect their children from harm…and these parents are clearly incompetent.

  17. boone68 says

    Why, why, oh why would any decent parent place their CHILD in such such a political position??? And further, why would any parent place their child in a religious school that discriminates against them? Putting your kid in this school is the SAME as putting them in a Muslim school. The kids will grow up learning that the PARENTS are a sin, that their RELATIONSHIP is a sin, and that THEY are a sin. Maybe they might learn how to rid the world of sin. God. lesbians need to catch a clue. Raise your kids right. Raise them atheists.

  18. Diogenes says

    Yes, they should send them to Greenhill School. That’s where I went.

    Academically it’s far superior to St. Vincent’s and it has a very progressive diversity policiy that includes sexual orientation: http://www.greenhill.org/podium/default.aspx?t=101667

    And I have heard that one of the top administrators is openly gay.

    When I was a child in the 60s, Greenhill taught all the kids French, beginning in pre-school. Now they do Spanish, starting at the same age. Many of the kids end up going to the ivies.

  19. Suzy Creamcheese says

    @markdc, To inform the misinformed or remdiate the just plain stupid, they are ANGLICAN, which is NOT Catholic.

    Read the article and do your homework bonehead.

  20. Kathryn Kenny says

    I’m a lesbian mom in this area- just fyi, Greenhill is no doubt an awesome school, but the tuition is $20k compared to $5k for a year at St. Vincents. Also, Greenhill would be at least an hour commute each way in traffic.

    Unfortunately in the DFW area public schools are mediocre at best. My partner and I sent our two daughters to a Catholic school about 2 miles from this “anglican” school for many years with no problems whatsoever. Sadly we did end up having to make the hard decision to put them in public do to financial problems.

    I am very disheartened to see many of the same hateful comments made by straight conservatives on our local news site repeated here.

  21. Brett says

    This is a private school! Maybe you gays should start your own church and your own private school nand that way we would have no problem. You could even have 2 different sex ed classes… one for lick em and one for stick em!! If you gay folks don’t like our views then you don’t have to listen, just stay away. Easy right? Just don’t try to force your sick nasty perverted ways on us and we can all just get along. God Bless

  22. Joe in NYC says

    Tank, I never said one faith is true and the other is not. I’m in the business of facts and not judgments. I simply am commenting on the fact that these people are not associated with The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion and that, contrary to the policy of this school (which is connected to ACNA, which split from TEC), The Episcopal Church does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. You can read into that whatever you wish.

    Keep laughing, though, if it makes you feel better. Laughter is good for the bitter soul.

  23. TANK says

    And I’m just relying on the fact that the episcopal church is undergoing a massive schism because of the antigay and antiwoman beliefs of many episcopalians. Many, many episcopalians have antigay religious beliefs because of their episcopalian faith. What will likely happen is that the province (the episcopal church is a province of the worldwide anglican communion) will split, dividing the little over two million members in the u.s.

    I’m not relying on any “judgments,” but instead arguments. Logical fallacies (the informal variety) aren’t simply a matter of taste…they’re flaws in reasoning. The fact is that gay friendly christians and gay christians (or gay friendly and gay people of whatever religious faith) appeal to the same source of normativity that antigay christian bigots do who do not overlook many evil passages within the bible (don’t ignore them as the moderate does), and give it its most likely interpretation (and it ain’t “metaphor”). That shared source of normativity that you believe in and defend makes you culpable for the bad stuff, and it carries over to a defense of their faith, too….because it’s really the same faith, just different pick and choose interpretations. That’s not a a mere judgment…it’s the conclusion of an argument.

  24. Joe in NYC says

    So you think the more members, the more legit or valid the church is? You seem to be implying such.

    I have never experienced picking and choosing of verses or “ignoring” of verses. What I have experienced is careful examination of historical context, a revisiting of the original text, to explain verses that may appear to the some as condoning homophobia. We do not run away from these portions (or the rest of the scriptures) but instead examine them carefully. You are wrong.

    Sounds like you have a beef with the Episcopal Church, but are woefully uninformed: we are ALREADY splitting over these issues. See Ft. Worth, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and likely soon to be South Carolina. More could leave. Fine, but don’t call them Episcopalians, and–at least for the time being–don’t call them Anglicans either.

    I have no desire to argue with you or influence your opinion; I could honestly care less. However…my point:

    This is not an Episcopal school, and this would not happen in an Episcopal school. Full stop.

  25. Joe in NYC says

    @ Brett…This is a private school! Maybe you gays should start your own church and your own private school nand that way we would have no problem. You could even have 2 different sex ed classes… one for lick em and one for stick em!! If you gay folks don’t like our views then you don’t have to listen, just stay away. Easy right? Just don’t try to force your sick nasty perverted ways on us and we can all just get along. God Bless”

    Cute. Sigh.

  26. TANK says

    “So you think the more members, the more legit or valid the church is? You seem to be implying such.”

    Nope. I think anyone who bases their understanding of normativity (namely, on how we should treat each other) on revelation is morally defective, regardless of how many people do it, or thoughtless tradition (blindly accepting what others say because it’s tradition). I do it through reason. I know virtue ethicists who do it through value and value solely in terms of others and yourself. At least that’s respectable.

    “I have never experienced picking and choosing of verses or “ignoring” of verses.”

    Then you’re blind. For example, when a christian believes that homosexuality is immoral because it’s in the bible (old and new testament) they are observing the most likely interpretation of the text. A moderate who doesn’t so believe is ignoring that prescription found in the text, or reinterpreting it to fit their values. Another example. Not all muslims are extremist muslim terrorists. There are many muslims who are moderates, and they explicitly disregard verses in the qu’ran which call for what we refer to as terrorist behavior. All faiths are arbitrary pick and choose…which verses “we” acknowledge, and which “we” disergard for other values.

    “What I have experienced is careful examination of historical context, a revisiting of the original text, to explain verses that may appear to the some as condoning homophobia.”

    Appear to a lot. Just know that your interpretation is no more valid than their interpretation, and the only thing you have to recommend yours over theirs is faith itself…which decides nothing. “God told me x,” the moderate says, to which the extremist says, “god told me y!” And both have just as much “scripture” to justify x or y.

    “We do not run away from these portions (or the rest of the scriptures) but instead examine them carefully.”

    You and all other denominations.

    “You are wrong.”

    And you are a believer…and no better nor worse than any other.

    “Sounds like you have a beef with the Episcopal Church, but are woefully uninformed: we are ALREADY splitting over these issues.”

    Nope. I have a beef with anyone whose foundation for ethics is revelation. That is pretty much all religion.

    “See Ft. Worth, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and likely soon to be South Carolina. More could leave. Fine, but don’t call them Episcopalians,”

    There’s no such thing as a true Episcopalian…”true” catholic…”true” mormon…”true” baptist. That’s meaningless terminology.

    “and–at least for the time being–don’t call them Anglicans either”

    You can call them whatever you want. And they can call you whatever they want. And there’s no fact of the matter to make any of what they call you or you call them “true”.

    “I have no desire to argue with you or influence your opinion;”

    That’s obviously not true given your…argument.

    “I could honestly care less. However…my point:

    This is not an Episcopal school, and this would not happen in an Episcopal school. Full stop.”

    Not yet…maybe…but it will be. Because when all you have is the arbitrary whims of revelation and pick and choose, it’s whatever you say it is, or rather, they say it is.

  27. Joe in NYC says

    Hey dog/troll, take the bone. You can have it. Parsing someone’s phrases and trying to use your best Intro to Logic 101 on the comments section of Towleroad makes you a bit of a loser, eh?

    I don’t need a Bible to know you’re wasting my time.

  28. amerigo says

    I find it to be very offensive to say that f_u*king in the a_s*s is a normal thing or lesbian sex is all right. The way sodomite people try to impose their deviation is incredible…
    It is the right of a privet school to allow people who share similar believes and deny anyone else the entry. If you are different and immoral it is logic to be denied entrance.
    Not from today, or yesterday, but from ancient times , even before Christianity, homosexual behavior is blamed and condemned. Tomorrow, pedophiles will claim that if true love between little 10 year ol children and mature male is “share” should be normal. Hey, may be zoophills will come out of the closed as well…

  29. Joe in NYC says

    God bless you, anyway, Amerigo. Your arguments are much the same as former Senator Rick Santorum. At various times in history, people have used religion to justify and condemn blacks, Hispanics, Irish, Italians, gays, Muslims, Germans, Russian, Jews … etc.

    “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth..” John 16: 12-13a

  30. TANK says

    You’re an idiot, joe…you have no possible recourse and resort to ad hominem. At least when I call you stupid, I provide an argument refuting you as well. Just know that because you defend divine command theory (revelation), and it is the source of your normativity, you are a defective person.

    Amerigo=degenerate scum.

  31. Joe in NYC says

    from Wikipedia:

    “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

    Get over yourself.

  32. TANK says

    useful idiot…you’re a turnip, joe. Your religion is used as an excuse for you to not think…like it is for everyone from muslim to christian.

    And my comments were on target, religionist.

  33. Joe in NYC says

    Name calling…original! Attacking religion…original!

    Okay, judge and jury troll…just leave it and go practice your intro-level logic on someone who may be impressed. Yawn.

  34. TANK says

    Considering you can’t even respond intelligently to “intro-level logic,” that’s not speaking very highly of you…

    And honestly…you don’t even know what logic is…and you’ve never taken an “intro” class in it, let alone anything more challenging (i.e., symbolic).

  35. Bruno says

    Gays/Lesbian want to push their life style onto others.
    The school has the right to reject a child who obviously has no business in going there.
    The Lesbian mothers want to make an issue out of their on stupidity.
    Do they want the school to stop teaching values which are in direct opposition to the values of the parents?
    Get it right, the school acted appropriately i both counts; defending their rights and principles, and protecting the child from the gay/lesbian agenda.
    God Bless the church and their leaders!

  36. RedOnTheGreg says

    Wow. I love how the open minded people on this thread are attacking these two women. Is it any wonder why the GLBT community keeps facing discrimination when we are so unwilling to make a united front against it? Schools like this are receiving state and federal money, or will be soon, under an ever expanding school voucher program. These women made a brave stand against discrimination, a move which will someday benefit all of us, and the children some of us may choose to have.

Leave A Reply